Jump to content
TUFLOW Forum

David Crompton

Members
  • Content Count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About David Crompton

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 03/07/1973

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Penrith, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

1185 profile views
  1. Hi All We need to model blockage for a q type pits and would like to use the blockage matrix to do this but can not seem to work out how to apply say a 50% blockage to a sag q type pits and only 20% blockage to on grade q type pits using the matrix. Is there a simple to do this? Thanks David
  2. It is now 5 month since a new release for MiTools was to be made to allow this tool to operate on MI V16. Urgent updated required. I question what our maintenance is paying for when the last update in early 2016? Thanks David
  3. Any update on the expected release date? September has come and gone.
  4. Hi Can you please advise when mitools will be able to be used in MI V16 64bit. Thanks David
  5. Hi all We are working on on a Dam break analysis and we are finding it difficult to find an appropriate time period, based on the soil type, in which to breach the dam wall. What time period have others used in they assessments in which to in effect "fail" the dam embankment? We have a number but the origins are a like vague. Is there any literature out there that we could reference. Thanks David
  6. Hi All We have been asked to look at the bed shear stress on a new open channel to be constructed and part of a new development to determine if additional armouring is required. We have mapped bed shear (BSS output) and have value ranging form 0 to 2555(?). My question is what is considered to be acceptable range of bed shear stress before channel scour is likely to occur? Thanks David
  7. Hi All We are currently working on a existing model that was run with a 10 m and a 1d channel to defining the creek lines. We now plan to refine the modelling extent to focus a reported flooding problem and reduce the cell size down to 2m as we also have detailed survey of the site. My initial thoughts would be to remove the 1d channel that was previously used to define the creekline and now use a 2d surface to better define the terrain and flow conveyance in the area on interest . I would think a 2d approach would provide a better representation of flood impacts than 1d channel? Therefore my question is do we continue with the 1d channel (with updated cross section information) as this was the adopted approach in the previous assessment or flip this to a 2d only model now that we have improved survey information and will be running at significantly reduced cell size. Does a 2d only Approach provide an improved results? Thanks David
  8. the more links in the document to navigate around the better I say :rolleyes:
  9. Hi Phil, Thanks for investigating. It would be good to have both options. Regards, David
  10. Hi Chris, Thanks for that. We are aware of the scale factor option, however the default should be 1 if the scale factor parameter is not used. Regards,
  11. Thanks Phil, Both options run, however there appears to be an issue with the vector scaling. The vector size generated is smaller when using the latest version of Tuflow to GIS (2014-08-AB). However, vector values are consistent. See attached images. Regards,
  12. Hi, Trying to create a gridded vector output using tuflow to gis. coming up with the attached error. We are using the latest version of Tuflow to Gis (2014-08-AB). If we go back to a 2011 version, the process works. We are using the following command lines to perform this process. set TUFLOWTOGIS=C:\TUFLOW_to_GIS_w64.exe set RUN=start "T_G" "%TUFLOWTOGIS%" -b Rem !Conversion of velocity grid at time maximum with 10m grid %RUN% -mif -vector -grid10 -t99999 -sgs "C:\mymodel_V.dat" Pause Can anyone suggest a reason why the above should not work, or is there an issue with the 2014 version of Tuflow to Gis?
  13. Hi All We are having some trouble create max max files from XMDF outputs. What we need is a peak height and depth asc grid for use in Mapinfo. We are using the below batch command to create of output files res_to_res.exe -b -max -typeh -t99999 "Dur1.xmdf" "Dur2.xmdf" res_to_res.exe -b -max -typed -t99999 "Dur1.xmdf" "Dur2.xmdf" Both command line works but the second line over rights the files created from the first line. Thus only a single xmdf files is created. The name of the file that is created is Dur1(maxmax).xmdf We have then tried the below to create the asc grid TUFLOW_to_GIS.exe" -b -asc -t111111 "Dur1(maxmax).xmdf" It ask for a .2dm and any file name you put into the utility, say it does not exist (even though it does). Any advice on getting the process to work would be apprecaited. David .
  14. Hai C It may be that with the 2m model the time to peak is a little longer then the other sized models and you may need to run the 2 m grid model for a longer time period to see a similar result. I would suggest running the 2m model for another hour to see if the peak is reached I also note the the water levels are significantly different in your snap shots which may suggest other modelling instability within the model. I would welcome any comment from the from as to why there appear to be an increase in water levels? Thanks David
  15. Hi Adam Generally, if there are 3-4 cells that are defining the flowpath then Tuflow should produce accurate results. As always, check outside of TUFLOW (simple Manning calculation or HECRAS) are recommended. The material roughness used within the model can also have impact of result and would recommend a few (1 or 2) sensitivity runs to assess the impact the a change in roughness within the flowpath may have on the results. Hope this helps David
×
×
  • Create New...